P3D Re: no more kodak

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: CanterMike@xxxxxxx <CanterMike@xxxxxxx>


>Don't forget it took at least 40 years to obsolete 127 and 620, about
35 years
>for the original instamatic 126, and over 25 years for the "pocket
instamatic"
>110.  Disk film, however lasted less than ten years.  This shortening
of
>product cycles reminds me of the automobile market.

I'll take your word for the length of time these formats lasted, I don't
have this information myself.  All I know is that the cameras outlasted
the production of the film.

>My question is: are these reactive responses to changing customer
demands, or
>deliberate, pro-active (is that really a word?) efforts to force a
change in
>the market?


Well, consider that there are thousands and thousands of cameras still
extant that can still use these "obsolete" film formats (you can find
numerous examples of perfectly functional cameras in practically any
antique store).  A more apt analogy to the automobile market might be if
Detroit switched to engines that would only run on an alternative fuel
that older cars couldn't use.  Eventually, dealers would stop carrying
gasoline.  As soon as the remaining supply of gasoline was exhausted (no
pun intended), people would be forced to buy a new model or find a niche
producer of gasoline (no doubt at premium prices), like some people have
turned to a company that produces "127 rollfilm" by cutting down and
respooling a larger, still-manufactured stock (220?).

Would consumers stand for this?  I doubt it.  Why did it work for Kodak?
If Fuji had been around at the time that Kodak did this, would Kodak
have succeeded?

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)




------------------------------